Buccal Soft Tissue Profile (BSP)BC-5303NCT04210596
Connective Tissue Graft Versus Collagen Matrix
A study testing Soft tissue augmentation at the buccal aspect of single implants in people with Buccal Soft Tissue Profile (BSP), run by University Ghent at 1 site in Belgium.
Trial summary
Patients in need of a single implant in the premaxilla and presenting with a horizontal buccal soft tissue defect at the single tooth gap will be invited to participate in a multicenter RCT. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Buccal Soft Tissue Profile (BSP)
- What is being tested?
- Soft tissue augmentation at the buccal aspect of single implants
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 60 participants
- Where
- 1 siteBelgium
- Study dates
- 1 Sep 2019to 31 Dec 2025
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- at least 18 years old
- good oral hygiene defined as full-mouth plaque score ≤ 25%
- presence of a single tooth gap in the anterior maxilla (15-25) with both neighboring teeth present
- failing tooth at least 3 months earlier removed
- class I defect at the single tooth gap as clinically assessed (buccopalatal loss of tissue with a normal apicocoronal ridge height)
- buccopalatal bone dimension of at least 6 mm at the central and crestal aspect of the single tooth gap to ensure complete embedding of an implant by bone.
Who cannot join
- systemic diseases
- smoking
- (history of) periodontal disease;
- untreated caries lesions
- need for horizontal bone augmentation at the time of implant placement
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Study Comparing Connective Tissue Graft with Collagen Matrix to Re-establish Convexity At the Buccal Aspect of Single Dental Implants
Patients in need of a single implant in the premaxilla and presenting with a horizontal buccal soft tissue defect at the single tooth gap will be invited to participate in a multicenter RCT. Prior to surgery, a small-field low-dose CBCT is taken since a buccopalatal bone dimension of at least 6 mm at the central and crestal aspect of the single tooth gap is required to ensure complete embedding of an implant by bone. Sixty patients will be randomly allocated to the test group or control group in 6 centers. Each center receives 10 sealed envelopes (5 are internally labelled with 'test group' and 5 with 'control group').
For each patient a digital planning is performed in implant planning software and a tooth-supported surgical guide is fabricated. In the control group, a single implant is placed following flap elevation and surgical guide installation. Then, a CTG from the palate is positioned under the buccal mucosa to thicken the tissues. A provisional restoration is placed at the day of surgery, which is replaced by a permanent one 3m later. Patients in the test group are treated in the same way, yet a CM (Fibro-Gide®) is used instead of a CTG.
Read more
Changes in the buccal soft tissue profile are registered over time by superimposing intra-oral scans in SMOP® software.
Secondary outcomes included clinical, aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes.
Read the detailed description
Patients will be included in a multicenter RCT following screening and after having received written consent.
A sample size calculation using the Satterthwaite t-test was performed in SAS Power and Sample Size based on a comparison of mean change in BSP (primary outcome variable) from baseline to 1 year between the control group and test group. The calculation was based on finding a mean difference of at least 0.5 mm between these groups with a standard deviation of 0.5 mm for CTG and 0.7 mm for CM (as adopted from Zeltner et al. 2017). With alpha set at 0.05 and a power of 0.80, the sample size calculation indicated 25 patients to be included per group. To compensate for drop-outs, 30 patients would be treated with CTG and 30 would be treated with CM.
Clinicians and centers, randomization, allocation concealment and blinding Six experienced clinicians will treat 10 patients each. All clinicians are staff members of the Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology at UGent - UZ Gent, who also work part-time in different private practices. The digital workflow, the implant placement protocol, the application of CTG and CM and the restorative protocol will be thoroughly discussed among the 6 clinicians in a training session before the start of the trial.
During the training session each clinician will receive 5 sealed envelopes internally coded as 'CTG' and another 5 as 'CM'. Just prior to surgery, a sealed envelope will be randomly selected and opened to reveal the treatment to be conducted. The measuring investigator will not be involved in the treatment of any of the patients and will be blinded to allow unbiased registrations.
Pre-operative digital planning A full digital workflow will be adopted for every patient. This implies the fabrication of a stereolythographic surgical guide on the basis of a 3D digital implant planning in designated software (NobelClinician, Nobel Biocare, Zürich, Switserland). A low-dose small-field Cone-Beam CT and intra-oral scan are required for this purpose. The same software will also be used to design a provisional acrylic crown, which will be adapted chairside immediately following surgery (Tempshell, Nobel Biocare, Zürich, Switserland).
Surgery Control group: soft tissue augmentation with CTG Patients start to take systemic antibiotics (Amoxicilline 1g) and anti-inflammatory medication (ibuprofen 600 mg) 1h pre-operatively. Following local anesthesia (Septanest special, Septodont, Saint Maur des Fossés, France) and oral disinfection (Corsodyl mouth rinse, GSK, Wavre, Belgium), a conventional mucoperiosteal flap will be raised. Thereupon, the surgical guide is positioned and a dental implant (NobelReplace CC PMC, Nobel Biocare, Zürich, Switserland) is installed. A CTG is harvested from the palatal mucosa in the premolar area by means of the single-incision technique as described by De Bruyckere et al. (2015) (fig. 1). The CTG is pulled into the envelope and fixed with two sutures (Seralon 6/0, Serag Weissner, Naila, Germany). Tension-free primary wound closure with the same suture material is pursued around a provisional acrylic crown. Post-op instructions include the intake of systemic antibiotics during 4 days (Amoxicilline 1g, two times a day), anti-inflammatory medication as deemed necessary by the patient and oral disinfection twice a day during 1 week. Then, sutures are removed. After 3 months, the provisional crown will be replaced by a permanent crown by the general dentist.
Test group: soft tissue augmentation with CM In the test group, no CTG is harvested as it will be replaced by CM (Fibro-Gide, Geistlich Biomaterials, Wolhusen, Switserland). Apart from that, all pre-op, surgical and post-op procedures are identical in the control group and test group.
Prior to surgery (baseline = t0), at 3 months (t1), 1 year (t2) and 5 years (t3) an intra-oral optical scan of the implant site and neighboring teeth will be taken (Trios, 3shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). The region of interest (ROI) will be defined on STL files with a trapezoid shape encompassing the following borders: 1 mm apical to the midbuccal soft tissue level (coronal), the mucogingival junction (apical) and 1 mm distance from the neighbouring tooth at both sides (mesial, distal). This ROI may vary between patients due to anatomical variation but will be kept constant in each patient and site over time. The STL images of baseline and follow-up will be superimposed and matched using the best-fit algorithm at the adjacent tooth surfaces. The linear changes in BSP will be measured in the middle of the ROI, calculated by the software and expressed in mm corresponding to the mean distance between the surfaces representing the evaluated time points (t0, t1, t2, t3).
All patients are scheduled for suture removal and oral hygiene instructions after 1 week with registration of:
Postoperative bleeding, Pain and amount of anti-inflammatory medication taken, Oedema and Hematoma.
After 3 months, 1 year and 2 years, all patients are scheduled for a clinical and radiographic follow-up visit, including registration of mesial and distal marginal bone level. Intra-oral radiographs will be taken using the long-cone parallel technique. Bone levels will be assessed and defined as the distance from the implant-abutment interface to the first bone-to-implant contact to the nearest 0.1 mm. Clinical parameters ,such as probing pockets depths (mm), plaque (presence or absence) and bleeding on probing (presence or absence) are registered as well as vertical soft tissue levels at the midbuccal aspect to the nearest 0.5 mm. White and Pink esthetics are assessed according to Furhauser.
- Conditions
- Buccal Soft Tissue Profile (BSP)
- Being tested
- Soft tissue augmentation at the buccal aspect of single implants
- Keywords
- connective tissue graft, collagen matrix, dental implant, single tooth, volumetric analysis
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Soft tissue augmentation at the buccal aspect of single implantsProcedure or surgery
Soft tissue augmentation is performed following mucoperiosteal flap elevation at the buccal aspect of single implants. The connective tissue graft (control) or collagen matrix (test) is inserted in the buccal pouch and attached with monofilament sutures.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Control group | Active comparator | Connective tissue graft harvested from the palate Receives: Procedure: Soft tissue augmentation at the buccal aspect of single implants |
| Collagen matrix | Experimental | Pig-derived collagen matrix (Fibro-Gide, Geistlich Biomaterials, Wolhusen, Switserland) Receives: Procedure: Soft tissue augmentation at the buccal aspect of single implants |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Changes in buccal soft tissue profile (BSP)
Volumetric analysis with designated software on the basis of intra-oral scans at fixed time points (absolute changes in mm, relative changes in %)
Measured: Pre-op, 3 months, 1 year, 2 years
Secondary outcomes (23)
Changes in Probing pocket depth
Probing pocket depth (mm)
Measured: 3 months, 1 year, 2 years
Changes in Bleeding on probing
Bleeding on probing (score 0-4)
Measured: 3 months, 1 year, 2 years
Changes in Plaque Index
Plaque index (score 0-4)
Measured: 3 months, 1 year, 2 years
Changes in radiographic outcomes
marginal peri-implant bone loss (mm)
Measured: 3 months, 1 year, 2 years
Patient-reported outcome measures
Assessment of pain (VAS)
Measured: 1 week
Patient-reported outcome measures
oedema (VAS)
Measured: 1week
Patient-reported outcome measures
bleeding (VAS)
Measured: 1 week
Patient-reported outcome measures
hematoma (VAS)
Measured: 1 week
Patient-reported outcome measures
aesthetic evaluation by patients (VAS)
Measured: 1 week
Patient-reported outcome measures
aesthetic evaluation by patients (VAS)
Measured: 3 months
Patient-reported outcome measures
aesthetic evaluation by patients (VAS)
Measured: 1 year
Patient-reported outcome measures
aesthetic evaluation by patients (VAS)
Measured: 2 years
Patient-reported outcome measures
willingness to undergo again (VAS)
Measured: 1 week
Patient-reported outcome measures
willingness to undergo again (VAS)
Measured: 3 months
Patient-reported outcome measures
willingness to undergo again (VAS)
Measured: 1 year
Patient-reported outcome measures
willingness to undergo again (VAS)
Measured: 2 years
Aesthetic outcome as assessed by care providers
Pink Esthetic Score (0-14)
Measured: 1 year
Aesthetic outcome as assessed by care providers
Pink Esthetic Score (0-14)
Measured: 2 year
Aesthetic outcome as assessed by care providers
WhiteEsthetic Score (0-10)
Measured: 1 year
Aesthetic outcome as assessed by care providers
White Esthetic Score (0-10)
Measured: 2 years
Surgery time
Time needed to complete the contour augmentation procedure
Measured: At Surgery
Primary stability
Primary stability after implant placement (Ncm)
Measured: At Surgery
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio
Difference in cost divided by the effect of the different procedures
Measured: baseline - 2 years
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted24 Dec 2019
- Study start1 Sep 2019
- Primary completion31 Dec 2025 (estimated)
- Study completion31 Dec 2025 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (22)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Buccal Soft Tissue Profile (BSP)Studies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Multicenter randomized controlled study with 2 treatment arms (control: connective tissue graft; test: collagen matrix) and 6 centers
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 60 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University Ghent
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Osteology Foundation
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04210596
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 18-178
- Other IDs
- BOF.STG.2019.0004.01, 18-178
- Acronym
- BC-5303
- Status last verified
- Mar 2025
- First submitted
- 7 Oct 2019
- Last updated
- 6 Mar 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided: If the data can be included in a meta-analysis upon request by the authors, they can be transferred
Publications
Burkhardt R, Hammerle CH, Lang NP; Research Group on Oral Soft Tissue Biology & Wound Healing. Self-reported pain perception of patients after mucosal graft harvesting in the palatal area. J Clin Periodontol. 2015 Mar;42(3):281-7. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12357. Epub 2015 Feb 16.
PubMed 25544993De Bruyckere T, Eeckhout C, Eghbali A, Younes F, Vandekerckhove P, Cleymaet R, Cosyn J. A randomized controlled study comparing guided bone regeneration with connective tissue graft to re-establish convexity at the buccal aspect of single implants: A one-year CBCT analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2018 Nov;45(11):1375-1387. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13006.
PubMed 30133718De Bruyckere T, Eghbali A, Younes F, De Bruyn H, Cosyn J. Horizontal stability of connective tissue grafts at the buccal aspect of single implants: a 1-year prospective case series. J Clin Periodontol. 2015 Sep;42(9):876-882. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12448. Epub 2015 Sep 16.
PubMed 26373422Del Pizzo M, Modica F, Bethaz N, Priotto P, Romagnoli R. The connective tissue graft: a comparative clinical evaluation of wound healing at the palatal donor site. A preliminary study. J Clin Periodontol. 2002 Sep;29(9):848-54. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-051x.2002.290910.x.
PubMed 12423299Eghbali A, Seyssens L, De Bruyckere T, Younes F, Cleymaet R, Cosyn J. A 5-year prospective study on the clinical and aesthetic outcomes of alveolar ridge preservation and connective tissue graft at the buccal aspect of single implants. J Clin Periodontol. 2018 Dec;45(12):1475-1484. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13018. Epub 2018 Nov 5.
PubMed 30290007Furhauser R, Florescu D, Benesch T, Haas R, Mailath G, Watzek G. Evaluation of soft tissue around single-tooth implant crowns: the pink esthetic score. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005 Dec;16(6):639-44. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01193.x.
PubMed 16307569Hammerle CH, Araujo MG, Simion M; Osteology Consensus Group 2011. Evidence-based knowledge on the biology and treatment of extraction sockets. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Feb;23 Suppl 5:80-2. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02370.x.
PubMed 22211307Huber S, Zeltner M, Hammerle CHF, Jung RE, Thoma DS. Non-interventional 1-year follow-up study of peri-implant soft tissues following previous soft tissue augmentation and crown insertion in single-tooth gaps. J Clin Periodontol. 2018 Apr;45(4):504-512. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12865. Epub 2018 Feb 1.
PubMed 29290089Naenni N, Bienz SP, Benic GI, Jung RE, Hammerle CHF, Thoma DS. Volumetric and linear changes at dental implants following grafting with volume-stable three-dimensional collagen matrices or autogenous connective tissue grafts: 6-month data. Clin Oral Investig. 2018 Apr;22(3):1185-1195. doi: 10.1007/s00784-017-2210-3. Epub 2017 Sep 18.
PubMed 28924826O'Leary TJ, Drake RB, Naylor JE. The plaque control record. J Periodontol. 1972 Jan;43(1):38. doi: 10.1902/jop.1972.43.1.38. No abstract available.
PubMed 4500182Seibert JS. Reconstruction of deformed, partially edentulous ridges, using full thickness onlay grafts. Part I. Technique and wound healing. Compend Contin Educ Dent (Lawrenceville). 1983 Sep-Oct;4(5):437-53. No abstract available.
PubMed 6578906Tan WL, Wong TL, Wong MC, Lang NP. A systematic review of post-extractional alveolar hard and soft tissue dimensional changes in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Feb;23 Suppl 5:1-21. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02375.x.
PubMed 22211303Thoma DS, Buranawat B, Hammerle CH, Held U, Jung RE. Efficacy of soft tissue augmentation around dental implants and in partially edentulous areas: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol. 2014 Apr;41 Suppl 15:S77-91. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12220.
PubMed 24641003Thoma DS, Naenni N, Benic GI, Hammerle CH, Jung RE. Soft tissue volume augmentation at dental implant sites using a volume stable three-dimensional collagen matrix - histological outcomes of a preclinical study. J Clin Periodontol. 2017 Feb;44(2):185-194. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12635. Epub 2017 Jan 3.
PubMed 27716970Thoma DS, Zeltner M, Hilbe M, Hammerle CH, Husler J, Jung RE. Randomized controlled clinical study evaluating effectiveness and safety of a volume-stable collagen matrix compared to autogenous connective tissue grafts for soft tissue augmentation at implant sites. J Clin Periodontol. 2016 Oct;43(10):874-85. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12588. Epub 2016 Aug 12.
PubMed 27310522
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 6 Mar 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Study Comparing Connective Tissue Graft with Collagen Matrix to Re-establish Convexity At the Buccal Aspect of Single Dental Implants
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04210596
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- BC-5303 / 18-178
- Conditions
- Buccal Soft Tissue Profile (BSP)
- Keywords
- connective tissue graft, collagen matrix, dental implant, single tooth, volumetric analysis
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Active, not recruiting
- Enrolment
- 60 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University GhentUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Osteology Foundation
- Study start
- 1 Sep 2019 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Dec 2025 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 31 Dec 2025 (estimated)
- First posted
- 24 Dec 2019 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Patients in need of a single implant in the premaxilla and presenting with a horizontal buccal soft tissue defect at the single tooth gap will be invited to participate in a multicenter RCT. Prior to surgery, a small-field low-dose CBCT is taken since a buccopalatal bone dimension of at least 6 mm at the central and crestal aspect of the single tooth gap is required to ensure complete embedding of an implant by bone. Sixty patients will be randomly allocated to the test group or control group in 6 centers. Each center receives 10 sealed envelopes (5 are internally labelled with 'test group' and 5 with 'control group').
For each patient a digital planning is performed in implant planning software and a tooth-supported surgical guide is fabricated. In the control group, a single implant is placed following flap elevation and surgical guide installation. Then, a CTG from the palate is positioned under the buccal mucosa to thicken the tissues. A provisional restoration is placed at the day of surgery, which is replaced by a permanent one 3m later. Patients in the test group are treated in the same way, yet a CM (Fibro-Gide®) is used instead of a CTG.
Changes in the buccal soft tissue profile are registered over time by superimposing intra-oral scans in SMOP® software.
Secondary outcomes included clinical, aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes.
Detailed description
Patients will be included in a multicenter RCT following screening and after having received written consent.
A sample size calculation using the Satterthwaite t-test was performed in SAS Power and Sample Size based on a comparison of mean change in BSP (primary outcome variable) from baseline to 1 year between the control group and test group. The calculation was based on finding a mean difference of at least 0.5 mm between these groups with a standard deviation of 0.5 mm for CTG and 0.7 mm for CM (as adopted from Zeltner et al. 2017). With alpha set at 0.05 and a power of 0.80, the sample size calculation indicated 25 patients to be included per group. To compensate for drop-outs, 30 patients would be treated with CTG and 30 would be treated with CM.
Clinicians and centers, randomization, allocation concealment and blinding Six experienced clinicians will treat 10 patients each. All clinicians are staff members of the Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology at UGent - UZ Gent, who also work part-time in different private practices. The digital workflow, the implant placement protocol, the application of CTG and CM and the restorative protocol will be thoroughly discussed among the 6 clinicians in a training session before the start of the trial.
During the training session each clinician will receive 5 sealed envelopes internally coded as 'CTG' and another 5 as 'CM'. Just prior to surgery, a sealed envelope will be randomly selected and opened to reveal the treatment to be conducted. The measuring investigator will not be involved in the treatment of any of the patients and will be blinded to allow unbiased registrations.
Pre-operative digital planning A full digital workflow will be adopted for every patient. This implies the fabrication of a stereolythographic surgical guide on the basis of a 3D digital implant planning in designated software (NobelClinician, Nobel Biocare, Zürich, Switserland). A low-dose small-field Cone-Beam CT and intra-oral scan are required for this purpose. The same software will also be used to design a provisional acrylic crown, which will be adapted chairside immediately following surgery (Tempshell, Nobel Biocare, Zürich, Switserland).
Surgery Control group: soft tissue augmentation with CTG Patients start to take systemic antibiotics (Amoxicilline 1g) and anti-inflammatory medication (ibuprofen 600 mg) 1h pre-operatively. Following local anesthesia (Septanest special, Septodont, Saint Maur des Fossés, France) and oral disinfection (Corsodyl mouth rinse, GSK, Wavre, Belgium), a conventional mucoperiosteal flap will be raised. Thereupon, the surgical guide is positioned and a dental implant (NobelReplace CC PMC, Nobel Biocare, Zürich, Switserland) is installed. A CTG is harvested from the palatal mucosa in the premolar area by means of the single-incision technique as described by De Bruyckere et al. (2015) (fig. 1). The CTG is pulled into the envelope and fixed with two sutures (Seralon 6/0, Serag Weissner, Naila, Germany). Tension-free primary wound closure with the same suture material is pursued around a provisional acrylic crown. Post-op instructions include the intake of systemic antibiotics during 4 days (Amoxicilline 1g, two times a day), anti-inflammatory medication as deemed necessary by the patient and oral disinfection twice a day during 1 week. Then, sutures are removed. After 3 months, the provisional crown will be replaced by a permanent crown by the general dentist.
Test group: soft tissue augmentation with CM In the test group, no CTG is harvested as it will be replaced by CM (Fibro-Gide, Geistlich Biomaterials, Wolhusen, Switserland). Apart from that, all pre-op, surgical and post-op procedures are identical in the control group and test group.
Prior to surgery (baseline = t0), at 3 months (t1), 1 year (t2) and 5 years (t3) an intra-oral optical scan of the implant site and neighboring teeth will be taken (Trios, 3shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). The region of interest (ROI) will be defined on STL files with a trapezoid shape encompassing the following borders: 1 mm apical to the midbuccal soft tissue level (coronal), the mucogingival junction (apical) and 1 mm distance from the neighbouring tooth at both sides (mesial, distal). This ROI may vary between patients due to anatomical variation but will be kept constant in each patient and site over time. The STL images of baseline and follow-up will be superimposed and matched using the best-fit algorithm at the adjacent tooth surfaces. The linear changes in BSP will be measured in the middle of the ROI, calculated by the software and expressed in mm corresponding to the mean distance between the surfaces representing the evaluated time points (t0, t1, t2, t3).
All patients are scheduled for suture removal and oral hygiene instructions after 1 week with registration of:
Postoperative bleeding, Pain and amount of anti-inflammatory medication taken, Oedema and Hematoma.
After 3 months, 1 year and 2 years, all patients are scheduled for a clinical and radiographic follow-up visit, including registration of mesial and distal marginal bone level. Intra-oral radiographs will be taken using the long-cone parallel technique. Bone levels will be assessed and defined as the distance from the implant-abutment interface to the first bone-to-implant contact to the nearest 0.1 mm. Clinical parameters ,such as probing pockets depths (mm), plaque (presence or absence) and bleeding on probing (presence or absence) are registered as well as vertical soft tissue levels at the midbuccal aspect to the nearest 0.5 mm. White and Pink esthetics are assessed according to Furhauser.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Multicenter randomized controlled study with 2 treatment arms (control: connective tissue graft; test: collagen matrix) and 6 centers
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Control group | Active comparator | Procedure: Soft tissue augmentation at the buccal aspect of single implantsConnective tissue graft harvested from the palate |
| Collagen matrix | Experimental | Procedure: Soft tissue augmentation at the buccal aspect of single implantsPig-derived collagen matrix (Fibro-Gide, Geistlich Biomaterials, Wolhusen, Switserland) |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- at least 18 years old
- good oral hygiene defined as full-mouth plaque score ≤ 25%
- presence of a single tooth gap in the anterior maxilla (15-25) with both neighboring teeth present
- failing tooth at least 3 months earlier removed
- class I defect at the single tooth gap as clinically assessed (buccopalatal loss of tissue with a normal apicocoronal ridge height)
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- systemic diseases
- smoking
- (history of) periodontal disease;
- untreated caries lesions
- need for horizontal bone augmentation at the time of implant placement
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Soft tissue augmentation at the buccal aspect of single implantsSoft tissue augmentation is performed following mucoperiosteal flap elevation at the buccal aspect of single implants. The connective tissue graft (control) or collagen matrix (test) is inserted in the buccal pouch and attached with monofilament sutures. | Procedure or surgery | Collagen matrix, Control group |
Primary outcome
Changes in buccal soft tissue profile (BSP)
Time frame: Pre-op, 3 months, 1 year, 2 years
Volumetric analysis with designated software on the basis of intra-oral scans at fixed time points (absolute changes in mm, relative changes in %)
23 secondary outcomes
Changes in Probing pocket depth
Time frame: 3 months, 1 year, 2 years
Changes in Bleeding on probing
Time frame: 3 months, 1 year, 2 years
Changes in Plaque Index
Time frame: 3 months, 1 year, 2 years
Changes in radiographic outcomes
Time frame: 3 months, 1 year, 2 years
Patient-reported outcome measures
Time frame: 1 week
Patient-reported outcome measures
Time frame: 1week
Patient-reported outcome measures
Time frame: 1 week
Patient-reported outcome measures
Time frame: 1 week
Patient-reported outcome measures
Time frame: 1 week
Patient-reported outcome measures
Time frame: 3 months
Patient-reported outcome measures
Time frame: 1 year
Patient-reported outcome measures
Time frame: 2 years
Patient-reported outcome measures
Time frame: 1 week
Patient-reported outcome measures
Time frame: 3 months
Patient-reported outcome measures
Time frame: 1 year
Patient-reported outcome measures
Time frame: 2 years
Aesthetic outcome as assessed by care providers
Time frame: 1 year
Aesthetic outcome as assessed by care providers
Time frame: 2 year
Aesthetic outcome as assessed by care providers
Time frame: 1 year
Aesthetic outcome as assessed by care providers
Time frame: 2 years
Surgery time
Time frame: At Surgery
Primary stability
Time frame: At Surgery
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio
Time frame: baseline - 2 years
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 6 Mar 2025.
- Background: PubMed 25544993Burkhardt R, Hammerle CH, Lang NP; Research Group on Oral Soft Tissue Biology & Wound Healing. Self-reported pain perception of patients after mucosal graft harvesting in the palatal area. J Clin Periodontol. 2015 Mar;42(3):281-7. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12357. Epub 2015 Feb 16.
- Background: PubMed 30133718De Bruyckere T, Eeckhout C, Eghbali A, Younes F, Vandekerckhove P, Cleymaet R, Cosyn J. A randomized controlled study comparing guided bone regeneration with connective tissue graft to re-establish convexity at the buccal aspect of single implants: A one-year CBCT analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2018 Nov;45(11):1375-1387. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13006.
- Background: PubMed 26373422De Bruyckere T, Eghbali A, Younes F, De Bruyn H, Cosyn J. Horizontal stability of connective tissue grafts at the buccal aspect of single implants: a 1-year prospective case series. J Clin Periodontol. 2015 Sep;42(9):876-882. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12448. Epub 2015 Sep 16.
- Background: PubMed 12423299Del Pizzo M, Modica F, Bethaz N, Priotto P, Romagnoli R. The connective tissue graft: a comparative clinical evaluation of wound healing at the palatal donor site. A preliminary study. J Clin Periodontol. 2002 Sep;29(9):848-54. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-051x.2002.290910.x.
- Background: PubMed 30290007Eghbali A, Seyssens L, De Bruyckere T, Younes F, Cleymaet R, Cosyn J. A 5-year prospective study on the clinical and aesthetic outcomes of alveolar ridge preservation and connective tissue graft at the buccal aspect of single implants. J Clin Periodontol. 2018 Dec;45(12):1475-1484. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13018. Epub 2018 Nov 5.
- Background: PubMed 16307569Furhauser R, Florescu D, Benesch T, Haas R, Mailath G, Watzek G. Evaluation of soft tissue around single-tooth implant crowns: the pink esthetic score. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005 Dec;16(6):639-44. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01193.x.
- Background: PubMed 22211307Hammerle CH, Araujo MG, Simion M; Osteology Consensus Group 2011. Evidence-based knowledge on the biology and treatment of extraction sockets. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Feb;23 Suppl 5:80-2. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02370.x.
- Background: PubMed 29290089Huber S, Zeltner M, Hammerle CHF, Jung RE, Thoma DS. Non-interventional 1-year follow-up study of peri-implant soft tissues following previous soft tissue augmentation and crown insertion in single-tooth gaps. J Clin Periodontol. 2018 Apr;45(4):504-512. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12865. Epub 2018 Feb 1.
- Background: PubMed 28924826Naenni N, Bienz SP, Benic GI, Jung RE, Hammerle CHF, Thoma DS. Volumetric and linear changes at dental implants following grafting with volume-stable three-dimensional collagen matrices or autogenous connective tissue grafts: 6-month data. Clin Oral Investig. 2018 Apr;22(3):1185-1195. doi: 10.1007/s00784-017-2210-3. Epub 2017 Sep 18.
- Background: PubMed 4500182O'Leary TJ, Drake RB, Naylor JE. The plaque control record. J Periodontol. 1972 Jan;43(1):38. doi: 10.1902/jop.1972.43.1.38. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 6578906Seibert JS. Reconstruction of deformed, partially edentulous ridges, using full thickness onlay grafts. Part I. Technique and wound healing. Compend Contin Educ Dent (Lawrenceville). 1983 Sep-Oct;4(5):437-53. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 22211303Tan WL, Wong TL, Wong MC, Lang NP. A systematic review of post-extractional alveolar hard and soft tissue dimensional changes in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Feb;23 Suppl 5:1-21. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02375.x.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided. If the data can be included in a meta-analysis upon request by the authors, they can be transferred
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Soft tissue augmentation at the buccal aspect of single implants in people with Buccal Soft Tissue Profile (BSP), run by University Ghent at 1 site in Belgium.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 5 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: under way, not looking for participants, as of the sponsor's last update on 6 Mar 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Belgium. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Changes in buccal soft tissue profile (BSP) (time frame: Pre-op, 3 months, 1 year, 2 years). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04210596, which also lists 22 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 6 Mar 2025.